Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
| , | <br /> ORANGE COUNTY 03 <br /> | <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA <br /> • <br /> i ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. / - ^. <br /> MEETING DATE rmpmhpr c. innl <br /> SUBJECT: Prnpn ed Minimum Housing Standard Ordinance / <br /> .�, <br /> DEPARTMENT: Countl, Manager | � PUBLIC HEARING: cS x NO <br /> ________,___1_ _ / <br /> ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office <br /> ext. 5VO <br /> K HILL58OR0UGH - 7s2- Dl8l--T <br /> � HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 <br /> ( <br /> CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 <br /> MEBANE - 227-2031 <br /> • <br /> � 88-7331 <br /> � � • <br /> PURPOSE: To colsider a revised draft of the ordinance and the cost to implement. <br /> • <br /> . Belie4ing there to be a need to bring renter-occupied dwellings up to <br /> minim6m heat, plumbing, electrical, structural and other standards, the <br /> . HumaniServices Advisory Commission through a subcommittee headed by <br /> Candide Carraway earlier put forward a draft ordinance for Board consider.- <br /> ,::, tiond The Board referred it for staff review and comment. That has sinc <br /> been accomplished by the County Attorney researching the issues and makin, <br /> his r4visions, and by the Planning Director assessing staff impact to mount <br /> the inspections necessary for enforcement. Key revisions made by the Comity <br /> t;', Attorney include: <br /> '1:1 1. Article 1 is changed to include those findings and purposes <br /> , I necessary to limit the code to renter-occupied dwellings. <br /> r,;. 2. Article 2 through 12 clarify and make More ascertainable the <br /> standards to be met. <br /> . <br /> 2. Article 16 deletes authorization of the inspector to repair <br /> or demolish dwellings where the owner has failed to comply with <br /> the order of the inspector and inserts in its place an appeals <br /> procedure, criminal and equitable remedies, and recourse ' to <br /> the Superior Court for restraining urders. <br /> For staffing impact the Planning Director projected workload under the »p- <br /> tionol methvdstkxtArticle 14 provides for an inspection to be initiated. <br /> Existing taff could absorb the beginning numb f inspections <br /> ',-: inspeekor initiated and petition initiated apprpach. It is,estimated they <br /> � would start and increase as awareness of the program | <br /> Inspecitions on a regular comprehensive basis, on the other hand <br /> *.).c) would require an additional inspector position. With - <br /> 241 workdays available in a year (1,928 work hours) and given the require- <br /> ment or 5.5 hours per unit for processing, a total of 350 of the 579 sub- <br /> 'I]' standard rental units in the County (unincorporated) could be handled <br /> annually. Cost would be $28,866 for the first year for salary and start-u' <br /> equipment ($18,432 for 6 months) and about $22,000 each year thereafter. <br /> IMPACT: Impact of the ordinance on retaining housing supply is uncertain. <br /> lnxpec ions coupled with enforcement provide the mechanism to take <br /> action against deteriorated dwelliogs. It would be hoped that the <br /> owners by and large would repair the dwellings to comply with the <br /> minimum standards and thereby aid the goal of upgrading housing con- <br /> t ditions. However, to the extent they would not, the dwellings would <br /> be ordered vacated, removed or demolished. It cannot be estimated how <br /> much de enforcement measures would decrease the availability of low <br /> income rentals - which are already in short supply. Ideally, there <br /> would be' incentives (e.g. low interest improvement loans or grants) <br /> ` to upgrade and not sanctions alone. <br /> ■ <br /> . <br /> | ' � ' . � !� � � ��' <br /> . � . <br /> , ' <br />